The issue it has with facts is the same issue it'll have with any language game, in that it only understands how to mimic playing the game, without understanding the underlying rules of the game.
As an aside to anyone reading, would highly recommend internalizing the Tractatus. It really helps side step a lot of "high minded" debates (ex: is X conscious, is it moral to do Y) by actually making you ground what you actually mean when you say "conscious", "moral", etc.
Like, the Frege approach is like the symbolic AI approach... define the rules, derive the meaning from the rules.
The PI approach is like the LLM approach... derive the rules and meaning from "experiencing" the use of the language.
Eg, we don't need to define what a "game" is. We know when something is a game or not even if we can't come up with an explicit set of rules for defining all instances of what we would otherwise "feel" was a game.
I'm running low on blood sugar...
You can make Searle's Chinese Room argument, but I always find "assume there exists a book that contains every conversation ever" as a flawed premise.
It would be able to handle the following exchange:
Person: "Here's a cool question, ready?" Room: "Ready." Person: "What was the last message I sent to you?"
It can respond appropriately to the following sentence:
Person: "Hey, I'm gonna say something. Here is a sentence. Can you repeat the previous sentence back to me?"
Otherwise, why bother with all of this AI stuff? Just build Searle's Chinese Room as an index and you have a perfect chatbot.